Hewitt's Third Symposium Question 10-15-04

Here are the questions posed in Hugh Hewitt's Weekend Symposium #3, referring to the Democrat's Mary Cheney controversy: How deep a hole have John Kerry, Mary Beth Cahill and the Edwards dug for themselves? How lasting the damage?

If, as so many have said the “outing” of Mary Cheney is part of a plan hatched by this undistinguished group and their enablers “to transparently attempt to divide Bush's evangelical vote,” then they have failed to grasp the fundamental differences between that group of voters and themselves. It is misunderstanding that, if the “evangelicals” think about it points out an essential difference between the candidates and difference that should mobilize them to vote to support the Bush-Cheney ticket in full force and not, as the democratic strategists hope, stay home.

Mr. Bush believes that there is an objective standard against which actions and words can be judged. It is a coherent belief system, honored by many religions and by many philosophers. As C. S. Lewis put it in The Abolition of Man, “It is the doctrine of objective value, the belief that certain attitudes are really true, and others really false, to the kind of thing the universe is and the kind of things we are.”

Mr. Bush believes in an objective standard of “right” and “wrong.” Because of this belief system, he can call the leadership of countries that mean to do harm to others members of an “axis of evil.” To call someone evil is to hold that person up to an objective standard and find them wanting. At the second debate he took on Mr. Kerry’s nuanced stance on abortion by measuring it against an objective standard:

Well, it's pretty simple when they say: Are you for a ban on partial birth abortion? Yes or no?

And he was given a chance to vote, and he voted no. And that's just the way it is. That's a vote. It came right up. It's clear for everybody to see. And as I said: You can run but you can't hide the reality.

Mr. Bush’s core beliefs allow him to remain steadfast in his positions and his duties because he has an objective standard to guide him.

It is this Bush trait that the evangelicals should both recognize and embrace with their votes.

On the other hand, Mr. Kerry belongs to a different school of belief. C.S. Lewis wrote about “men without chests” –men who believe that all judgments about values are subjective. That is to say they believe that there are no absolute right things and no absolute wrong things. It is moral relativism. It is why Mr. Kerry can claim in the third debate that his approach toward abortion is not guided by his religion, but that his approach toward the environment is.

“I believe that choice is a woman's choice. It's between a woman, God and her doctor. And that's why I support that.

Now, I will not allow somebody to come in and change Roe v. Wade…

And I think that everything you do in public life has to be guided by your faith, affected by your faith, but without transferring it in any official way to other people.

That's why I fight against poverty. That's why I fight to clean up the environment and protect this earth.”

This lack of belief in objective value allows Mr. Kerry to “windsurf” his way through issues, changing direction with each shift in the political breeze and not to worry about the inconsistencies that might be objectively observed. He is always saying that whatever course he is currently on is the right course at the moment. “I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it” means “and I was right both times.” It allows him to attempt to be both Vietnam War hero and hero Vietnam War protestor (as opposed to Muhammad Ali who measured his belief against the Vietnam against an objective standard and went to jail rather than compromise his belief).

It is this view that makes a candidate’s child “fair game” for use as political fodder. It is this view that would twist a parental expression of outrage at this callous ploy into somehow being evidence of the parent being “ashamed” of that child. By objective standards, including the norms of political discourse observed and, indeed, monitored by the press, it is a step into the dark side. It reveals a soulless obsession with winning at any cost and a thorough lack of decency.

If the press calls the Kerry campaign on this it could be a huge issue. If they don’t, then it may still matter if the “evangelicals” can see the cynical manipulation being attempted and get to the polls in massive numbers to support Mr. Bush as the candidate who best reflects their worldview.

Update: Fixed some typos.
Update: It's an honor to have Russ Vaughn add his poetic wit as comment #1
Update: And thanks to Pierre at ThePink Flamingo Bar & Grill for the kind words. Check out his site by using the link on my "Links" list.

Mutiny?

Froggyruminations has this take on an article about an Army reserve motor transport platoon's alleged refusal to undertake a resupply mission. He expresses his (absolutely correct) concern that the refusal of troops to undertake a mission simply because they view the mission as "too dangerous" is something that cannot be tolerated in wartime. While I agree completely, I am not sure we have enough facts to judge this platoon's actions- yet. See my comments to his posting (and his response).

Also troubling to Froggy is the possible use that might be made of this situation by Mr. Kerry and his accomplices:

I predict that this will be spun by Kerry on the stump as the President not
sending enough Humvees to Iraq to protect our troops or some other tripe. This
is tailormade for democratic victim-mongering, and Kerry is the candidate who
was born to do this work. He is very familiar with the concept of backstabbing
your comrades in war, and he will take to this issue readily and with vigor. But
do not be deceived, war is an uncertain business, and force protection while
being a worthy goal, is secondary to victory.

I share his concern. If you read through this blogsite, you will become very aware that I am not a Kerry fan, nor do I place much faith in the "big media" to report the story without "spin."

The only effective counter to that spin is to be "firstest with the mostest" in terms of getting actual facts
out. If this platoon's mission was so vital to an operation that the risks involved to these particular troops was outweighed by the importance of the mission, say so. Loudly and clearly. Then, regardless of all other factors, there is no excuse for these soldiers failing to move out smartly irrespective of escorts or equipment condition.

However, the more difficult response comes if these troops were not on such "mission vital" tasking but were, say, supposed to go on a routine resupply run, albeit one one without normal escorts because those assets were being used
somewhere else for a job deemed more important than convoy escort.

Then their apparent "refusal" requires much more investigation. If I were conducting the investigation I would need details that are now unknown, including whether or not the troops involved reported, in advance of this mission assignment, that their equipment was in such poor condition that they could not use it to perform any
mission (not to bore you with details, but there are required reports up the chain of command that address this issue).
If the troops were reporting their concerns and their reports were being ignored by higher levels, then we praise the
troops and seek to see if more senior personnel failed to act on the reports to correct the problems identified.

However, if the troops didn't make such reports up the chain of command then they have no basis to complain when a mission comes up because it is their fault in failing to report their inability to perform their duties. By way of analogy, imagine a explosive ordnance disposal technician who breaks his hand while skiing and then, when being called on to defuse a bomb, for the first time announces he can't perform the task because of his hand. If the command, not knowing of his condition, was relying on him to be able to do his job, it will require a great deal of scrambling trying to get someone else in place to cover for him.

Readiness reports exist for a reason...

Update: Fixed links
Update: FoxNews Coverage provides some more info
Update: BlackFive weighs in with proper questions about where "middle managment" was in all this.BlackFive
Update: Unit Commander Reassigned at her own request, the unit's commander has asked to be reassigned...

Chinese information Warfare and Taiwan

Chinese information warfare threatens Taiwan - The Washington Times: Nation/Politics - October 13, 2004

"Chinese information warfare threatens Taiwan

By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Taiwan is facing a growing threat from Chinese computer attacks and other information-based strikes designed to cripple its infrastructures, a senior Pentagon official says.
    "China is actively developing options to create chaos on the island, to compromise components of Taiwan's critical infrastructure — telecommunications, utilities, broadcast media, cellular, Internet and computer networks," said Richard Lawless, deputy undersecretary of defense for East Asia and Pacific affairs."

Very interesting.

Info warfare is a growth industry...

Do Dinosaurs Fly in Papua New Guinea?

PREHISTORIC FLYING REPTILE HUNTED ON PNG ISLAND - October 13, 2004

Do dinosaurs roam the earth? Other than at CBS?

"PREHISTORIC FLYING REPTILE HUNTED ON PNG ISLAND

PORT MORESBY, Papua New Guinea (The National, Oct. 12) - Could the Siassi Islands in Papua New Guinea’s Morobe Province shed new light on prehistoric times?

Some, including American film maker Johathan Whitcome, would like to know the answer to this question.

Whitcomb, a "forensic videographer" recently arrived on Siassi hoping to see the "Ropen" – a huge flying creature reported to have features of a giant flying fox, with a mouth like that of a crocodile and wings that span up to 7 meters.

Whitcomb, who believes the creature is a dinosaur called "pterosaur," has been on Umboi Island, the main island of the Siassi Islands, trying to capture the creature on film...

Locals have told of how the luminous creature comes out in the night, flies toward the coast for feeding and how it liked feeding on the dead..."

Cool. Not that I believe it, but cool. Perhaps the Yeti, Ropen and Sasquatch can get together at Jackalope's place for a few beers and some chips.

Gen. Franks Criticizes Kerry And a Know-Nothing for Kerry Responds

Yahoo! News - Retired Gen. Franks Criticizes Kerry
Here's an interesting tale of truth and fiction:

By MARTIN GRIFFITH, Associated Press Writer

RENO, Nev. - Retired Gen. Tommy Franks launched a four-state campaign swing for President Bush by criticizing Sen. John Kerry's anti-Vietnam War activities and voting record on the military.

Franks, former commander of forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, faulted Kerry's votes on major weapons systems and intelligence issues, and against the 1991 Gulf War.

"If his voting record ruled the day, Saddam Hussein would not only be running Iraq but Kuwait," Franks told about 200 people Sunday at a Reno rally...Franks praised the Democratic challenger's military service during the Vietnam War, but said Kerry's later anti-war activities upset him. "The men I served with in Vietnam weren't war criminals and I'm proud I served with them," Franks said.

Franks, a registered independent in Florida who has voted for both Republican and Democratic presidential candidates, said he decided to endorse Bush because of his handling of the war against terrorism...

"I know a commander in chief when I see one and there's only one on the ballot," Franks said. "After September 11th, we were blessed to have a commander in chief who said enough is enough. "There are two options: to fight them (terrorists) over there or to fight them over here. I'm an over-there-kind-of-guy," he said..."

General Franks is really one of the good guys. Speaks his mind and speaks it clearly and without nuance. Not much doubt about where he stands.

In response to his comments, the Kerry campaign offered up a total Know-Nothing:

Kerry spokesman Sean Smith accused Franks of distorting Kerry's Senate voting record...

Kerry never branded any U.S. troops in Vietnam as war criminals, Smith added.

"The men who served with him in Vietnam are with him in his campaign and have been with him for 35 years," he said. "I think that says it all."

Sean Smith must wander through life without learning much.

Here's part of Kerry's opening statement during his 1971 testimony before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations:

"I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."

and this:

"We who have come here to Washington have come here because we feel we have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country; we could be quiet; we could hold our silence; we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens this country, the fact that the crimes threaten it, no reds, and not redcoats but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out."

and this:

"We are here in Washington also to say that the problem of this war is not just a question of war and diplomacy. It is part and parcel of everything that we are trying as human beings to communicate to people in this country, the question of racism, which is rampant in the military, and so many other questions also, the use of weapons, the hypocrisy in our taking umbrage in the Geneva Conventions and using that as justification for a continuation of this war, when we are more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions, in the use of free fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, search and destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners, the killing of prisoners, accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam. That is what we are trying to say. It is party and parcel of everything."

and this:
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=Timeline

April 18, 1971 -- John Kerry and Al Hubbard appear on NBC's "Meet the Press" to allege widespread atrocities by U.S. soldiers in Vietnam. Hubbard is introduced
as a former Air Force captain who had spent two years in Vietnam and was wounded in action. Kerry seems to admit to committing war crimes, saying, "There are all
kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages."

Well, Mr.Smith? Are you going to try again to say that John Kerry "Kerry never branded any U.S. troops in Vietnam as war criminals?" Is it really your position that if someone repeats a slander that means he didn't say it himself?

As for your contention that the "The men who served with him in Vietnam are with him in his campaign..." - I suggest you visit www.swiftvets.com and learn about those men who served with him who are not with him.

Update: Corrected posting date

Update: Beldar like General Franks line about "I know a commander in chief when I see one and there's only one on the ballot"

Kerry's "Terrorism as Nuisance"

My initial reaction to the New York Times magazine interview with John Kerry was less negative than I thought it would be. In fact, thanks to some reasonable reporting, I sort of have feel for Senator Kerry’s thought processes. That doesn’t give me much comfort.

I’m beginning to get the idea that Mr. Kerry is sort of a “one trick pony” when it comes to the world of ideas. Everything he says seems to be based on an analogy to one of his prior experiences. But he doesn’t seem to be able to move quickly to embrace new ideas, but he does have a certain consistency. An odd, out-of-phase consistency.

Thus, we see his clumsy analogy between terrorism and organized crime and prostitution. He has some experience prosecuting the latter, so he chooses to apply that knowledge to the battle against the former. His view of the military is shaped by his own experience in Vietnam. Every war becomes the Vietnam War. His view of the supremacy of diplomacy was probably shaped by the experience of growing up in a diplomat’s family. His long held opposition to nuclear weapons has not been modified over the years, so we see his strong reaction to the possibility of the U.S. developing nuclear bunker busters. It may explain why he has remained so classically leftist while many in his party moved to a more centrist positions.

So, when he discusses his view of terrorism, it is a view shaped by his experiences in working with drug lords and money launderers, the “non-state” forces that he went after before. Once again he turns to what he has done before.

In the the New York Times Magazine article (The New York Times > Magazine > Kerry's Undeclared War )
Bai, the reporter, attempts to distinguish President Bush’s position from Mr. Kerry’s by asserting that Bush is focusing on nations rather than these stateless supranational groups. I believe this understates the effort being made by the administration to use law enforcement techniques to clamp down on terrorist money while also providing examples of how the big stick will be used to thump nations who support terrorists. While they are not yet completely to be trusted, certainly Pakistan and Libya seem to have received loud and clear the message Mr. Bush sent out about being “with us or against us” in the fight against global terrorism.

Senator Kerry’s approach fails to recognize that some states operate outside the bounds of international law. Diplomacy has minimal impact on them. Indeed, some of these states are barely states at all, but are rather merely borders that encompass everything from street level dictatorships to tribal wars to warlord enclaves (think Somalia or Rwanda). Other states do not control all of their ostensible territory, but have large chunks that are under the rule of the gun. Since they have little or no trade, sanctions can have little impact on them (North Korea for instance, seems to be willing to allow its own people to starve rather than mend its ways). When dealing with such “nations” attempting to even find a government to negotiate with that has the power to enforce the results of any such diplomatic effort is a challenge. Further, there are other states, such as Iran, who recognize that Western dependence on their oil puts them outside the threat of meaningful sanctions.

Kerry seems unwilling to accept the idea that there are states that are so corrupt or so filled with rage that they will harbor virtually any group willing to pay enough protection money or to do the bidding of the regime on occasion, while maintaining as degree of “plausible deniability” about what they are doing. Iran, in particular, seems to fall into this mode.

Senator Kerry also seems naïve in expecting that he can form airtight alliances that will prove incapable of succumbing to bribery and self-interest. He has not addressed the issue of the Oil for Food scandal on the sanctions program against Iraq, perhaps because he believes that a certain level of corruption is inevitable, based on his past experience in dealing with organized crime.

Kerry’s view must be tested by voters against the real world they live in. Is Kerry simply too idealistic? Rudy Giuliani thinks so and challenges Kerry’s thought that, given the seeming impossibility of ever truly defeating terrorism, maybe the best we can hope for is a world in which terrorism is not a big thing, but put back into place as one of life’s “nuisances”:

I’m wondering exactly when Senator Kerry thought they were just a nuisance.
Maybe when they attacked the USS Cole? Or when they attacked the World Trade
Center in 1993? Or when they slaughtered the Israeli athletes at the Munich
Olympics in 1972? Or killed Leon Klinghoffer by throwing him overboard? Or the
innumerable number of terrorist acts that they committed in the 70s, the 80s and
the 90s, leading up to September 11?

This is so different from the President’s view and my own, which is in those days, when we were fooling
ourselves about the danger of terrorism, we were actually in the greatest
danger. When you don’t confront correctly and view realistically the danger that
you face, that’s when you’re at the greatest risk. When you at least realize the
danger and you begin to confront it, then you begin to become safer. And for him
to say that in the good old days – I’m assuming he means the 90s and the 80s and
the 70s -- they were just a nuisance, this really begins to explain a lot of his
inconsistent positions on how to deal with it because he’s not defining it
correctly.

I think Mr. Kerry’s definition is shaped by his inability to adapt to the new,
cold and hard reality of the post 9/11world. And it is wrong.

Update: corrected posting date

Oh, Kosovo!

military news about Balkans

As of August 2004:

There are still 20,000 peacekeepers in Kosovo, and no peace. There is 55 percent unemployment, criminal gangs control much of the economic activity there is and most of the population believes that the province should be independent. But the province is still technically part of Serbia. The Albanian majority wants to expel, by force is necessary, the remaining non-Albanians. The UN police force is 20 percent understrength and unable to deal with the growing crime rate...

There are about 20,000 NATO troops on the ground in Kosovo. This number includes the American forces. In addition to the NATO forces, the United Nation Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) has about 3,500 international police. The Kosovo Police Force has 6700 men. The Kosovo Protection Corps, consists of approximately 5,000. In other words, there are about 28,000 people whose job it is to maintain order in Kosovo.

Kosovo has, more or less, a population of about 1.9 million, about the same as the Seattle, Washington. Seattle has a police force of 1,800. And King County, in which Seattle is located has about 500 members of its sheriff’s department.

The ratio of Seattle residents to law enforcers is 826 citizen per officer. In Kosovo the ratio is 68 to one. Apparently that is not enough.

Kosovo’s economic outlook is bleak. More than five years after UNMIK and NATO moved in there is almost no industry. According to a study by the Economic Strategy And Project Identification Group(ESPIG) released in August 2004 under the auspices of the European Stability Initiative:

“The private sector that has emerged since 1999 is predominantly small- scale, low-capital intensive ventures in trade and construction. Some local entrepreneurs were able to generate quick wealth as importers. However, apart from building materials, some furniture production and a small food-processing sector, there is hardly any local manufacturing. In Pristina’s “industrial zone”, the largest in Kosovo, 66 plots were rented out in 2002: only 16 were used for production, all with three employees or less,and most were producing doors and window frames.

The post-war boom was also transfer-financed, and therefore unsustainable. The estimated total public expenditure in 2000 in Kosovo was €6.3 billion. In 2003, this had gone down to €3.1 billion (see table). These are very rough estimates, undertaken by the Macroeconomic Policy Unit of the Ministry of Finance and Economy. But the overall implications are clear: GDP growth in Kosovo’s economy was driven by external transfers, rather than from any lasting increase in the productivity of Kosovo’s enterprises. As a result, as budgetary support and reconstruction aid are withdrawn, Kosovo’s economy is almost certain to contract.”

In short, economic things are bad and will get worse.

Ethnic violence remains an issue:
ethnic violence

U. S. troop levels are down to about 2,500 in Kosovo, so the burden here is being carried by the UN and the Europeans. A French general just took over the NATO forces.

The Kosovar Albanians want an independent nation for themselves and are working hard to chase out the Serbs who remain in Kosovo.

In short, after 5 years and billions of dollars, Kosovo is still a mess.

Where are Kerry and Edwards on this issue? Why aren't they asking for investigations into what the exit strategy of the administration that got us into this mess was?

We know the answer. Bill Clinton got us in with Wes Clark's help. And so we stay.

Update: Fixed links including removing a link to a reference that seems to have disappeared, corrected spelling and some other things.

Don't Miss This!

Don't miss Jonah Goldberg's article "Shame, Shame, Shame"

Click on the title to go there.

Wow!

The Professionals

Here's some background to my comments: I spent most of my life around and in the military. Grew up in a military family (Air Force), married an Army brat. Went through Navy ROTC and served about 9 years active duty and 21 years reserve. My oldest son is a Navy pilot.

My dad was a WWII and Korea Air Force veteran who started out in the Army's segregated (mostly white officers, black troopers) horse cavalry patrolling the Mexican border, flew bombing missions over Germany with the Mighty 8th Air Force, flew B-26 missions in Korea, and ended up serving in the Strategic Air Command during the long, dark Cold War years. My father-in-law won a Bronze Star on the beaches of Normandy and, as a tanker, spent several years in Germany holding the Fulda Gap. They were professionals. Experts.

Before GPS, my dad could navigate a bomber group through the sky from point A to point B using the stars, the sun and some math. And get them there on time, on target. Probably uniquely for an Air Force officer, because of his cavalry background, he could shoot a .45 while on a horse at a gallop and hit his target. My father-in -law served as an advisor in Vietnam almost before anyone knew we were there. They could guide junior officers, put up with the admin and get the mission done. They were the good guys. And they were just part of the larger team.

In my own service I did Vietnam (on a ship), Desert Storm (on the beach in Saudi Arabia) and Kosovo staff duty at the NATO headquarters in Italy. Though much of my time was reserve, the reserves became the "subject matter experts" in a lot of areas the active forces decided were not needed on a daily basis. We got pretty good at some things. I know in the Army that the Civil Affairs people were/are largely reservists. Lawyers, city managers and mayors. People with the skill set to help other countries develop. Professionals.

My exposure to the modern, post-Vietnam active forces caused me to have nothing but respect for the young men and women who decided to serve the United States.

We have an exceptionally professional military, active and reserve. Every American should be proud, and humbled, by the willingness of these young men and women to put it all on the line for us all day, every day, in every part of the globe. From the Coast Guard Port Security Teams to Marine Recon to the submarine crews, they all serve to protect and defend.

As a lawyer in civilian life, I have been exposed to other professionals. Not one of them has been any better than the people I served with on active duty or with the reserves.

So I go a little crazy when some mother or father acts as if the military is a job of last resort for life's losers.

Who worry about their precious child being called to serve via a draft.

Who look at me as if I just grew three heads when I tell them my son is deployed and I'm proud of him out there doing his job. Who are astonished when my younger son says he wants to be a Navy fighter pilot.

Who don't seem to have a handle on the GWOT and how important this mission is.

I worry that their precious child doesn't believe that volunteering to serve is the least he or she could do. For whom the expression "freedom isn't free" has no meaning.

I worry about the minds who so misunderstand the current military that they would propose a draft so that the "rich" might share the dangers along with the "poor."

The people in the services are many things but what they are most is professional. And they resent the hell out of the patronizing attitude of these draft-mongers.

Here an anonymous trooper lays out a few words that might help to explain how the professionals feel about the idea of forcing people to join them:

Enlistment ain't a punishment, our units ain't a cell.
We want no men
or
women here who'll turn their face from hell.

We understand and
welcome the sacred charge we hold.
We signed on for this country;
whether
peace or war unfold.

We've been called 'bands of brothers'
we're here to
say that's true.
We all train long and hard, and trust all
crave to see it
through.

Who's at our side is vital, likewise who
minds our back.
Our lives are too important for this motivation's lack.

Absolutely correct!

Wishy-washy is not an option

In this essay, Orson Scott Card has an excellent take on the challenges facing President Bush in the real world as opposed to the make-believe land of John Kerry.

In particular he challenges John Edwards assertion there is a "mess" in Iraq and that alleged "mess" is the fault of the President and the Vice-president. While you should read the whole thing, here is a good part:

What is Edwards promising us? That Kerry will always make the right choice?

Well, actually, Kerry almost certainly will make the right decision on every issue. After all, if you take every possible position on every question, one of them is bound to be right.

The trouble is that the real President can't vacillate. He can't send troops in and at the same time not send them. He can't go with one plan and at the same time go with another. The President has to commit, and then work with the consequences.

Senator Kerry has never had to do that. Neither has Senator Edwards.
It's easy to say, "I would have done it better."

But in all their attack rhetoric, have you ever heard them say exactly what they would have done differently?

Consequence free behavior may be viable for a couple of light weight senators, but people who exercise executive power always have to accept the consequences of the decisions they make.

Kerry's apparent inability to even accept responsibility for simple things like falling down while skiing ("it's not my fault, I got knocked down") or to admit his positions have changed ("I have had the same position all along on Iraq...") do not bode well for his prospective performance as an executive.

Those of us who have ever worked for a boss who can never admit to making a mistake know what a special form of hell that is.

Hewitt's New Question 10-7-04

John Kerry spoke to the press today. Hugh Hewiit posts this new symposium question: "What do Kerry's answers to today's press inquiries tell us about Kerry's worldview and character?"

Here are the press questions and Kerry's responses:

Q. "If you are elected, given Paul Bremer's remarks, and deteriorating conditions as you have judged them, would you be prepared to commit more troops."

A. "I will do what the generals believe we need to do without having any chilling effect, as the president put in place by firing General Shinseki, and I'll have to wait until January 20th. I don't know what I am going to find on January 20th, the way the president is going. If the president just does more of the same every day, and it continues to deteriorate, I may be handed Lebanon, figuratively speaking. Now, I just don't know. I can't tell you. What I'll tell you is, I have a plan. I have laid out my plan to America, and I know that my plan has a better chance of working. And in the next days I am going to say more about exactly how we are going to do what has been available to this Administration that it has chosen not to do. But I will make certain that our troops are protected. I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, and I will make sure that we are successful, and I know exactly what I am going to do and how to do it."

Comment on this first "answer:"

1. By playing the "Shinseki card"* Mr. Kerry is claiming that President Bush is not getting accurate information from the commanders in the field because they are afraid they will lose their jobs if they tell the truth. Everybody is lying to save their own careers.

• Basically says President doesn't want to hear truth if it's bad news;
• So commanders won't tell truth;
• Because no one tells truth, and the commanders are so self interested they are allowing the situation to deteriorate without doing or saying anything to protect their troops and the troops are getting killed and wounded unnecessarily;
• Asserts that he, Kerry, despite never being there, somehow knows the "ground" truth of Iraq;
• Except maybe he doesn't -the situation may be worse later (but certainly not better);
• However, no mater how bad situation is, he has a plan that will fix it.

2. Kerry again contradicts himself mid-thought. He says:

• "I will do what the generals believe we need to do..." then
• Now I just don't know. I can't tell you..." then
• "I have a plan..."
  

3. He says he has "laid my plan out to America..." Is he talking about his plan to get more allies? He's already admitted France and Germany won't be playing in Iraq. If the plan is the one from his website it is consistent with the pattern we have heard from Kerry and Edwards so far in that it requires cooperation from many nations except Iraq itself. Yep, incredibly, it ignores the Iraqis completely! Maybe he doesn't consider them interested parties.

Here's his plan (from an April 30, 2004 speech at Westminster College): (my comments in bold)

First, we must create a stable and secure environment in Iraq. (meaningless undefined terms) That will require a level of forces equal to the demands of the mission. (Doh! Bet our planners wish they'd thought of that) To do this right, we have to truly internationalize both politically and militarily: we cannot depend on a US-only presence. (Facts wrong -we have 30+ allies, including the Iraqi and you know, the "bribed and coerced" ) In the short-term, however, if our commanders believe they need more American troops, they should say so and they should get them. (which is exactly what Bush and Rumsfeld have said, as have our commanders in the field)

But more and more American soldiers cannot be the only solution. Other nations have a vital interest in the outcome and they must be brought in. (Apparently Kerry believes Iraq has no interest in the outcome so he fails to mention them. France and Germany say "no" and so far, the only guy talking about adding "more and more" U.S. troops is Kerry)

To accomplish this, we must do the hard work to get the world’s major political powers to join in this mission. (You mean like going to the UN over and over and warning its members that if they don't enforce their own resolutions that they will risk being "irrelevant") To do so, the President must lead. (You mean by going to the UN over and over...) He must build a political coalition of key countries, including the UK, France, Russia and China, the other permanent members of the UN Security Council, to share the political and military responsibilities and burdens of Iraq with the United States. (Only a truly naive internationalist would believe that would ever work)

The coalition should endorse the Brahimi plan for an interim Iraqi government, it should propose an international High Commissioner to work with the Iraqi authorities on the political transition, and it should organize an expanded international security force, preferably with NATO, but clearly under US command. (or you could work with the Iraqi interim government and hold elections as soon as possible and let the Iraqis decide their own fate)

Once these elements are in place, the coalition would then go to the UN for a resolution to ratify the agreement. The UN would provide the necessary legitimacy. The UN is not the total solution but it is a key that opens the door to participation by others. (blah, blah, blah, UN, blah, blah, oil for food, blah, blah, etc)

His plan is OBE. Most of the heavy lifting has been done. Powerful forces have been set in motion, such as planning for the election. The Iraqis are ramping up, proud people that they are, for self-government, whether or not the UN "ratifies" it. Under the circumstances of the "oil for food" program, I would think the Iraqis might have somewhat less appreciation of the merits of the UN than Mr. Kerry seems to have.

Summary: Kerry must talk just to hear his own words, whether or not they make sense. He obviously is either clueless or indifferent as to how his words will be received by the parties he so casually slanders. Does he expect any of the generals he has just called self-absorbed cowards to suddenly trust him? Will he really listen to what these men he has inferred are chicken-hearted careerists recommend? Or not? Or will he just follow his magic plan and have all the lions and lambs lie down together?

How can anyone listen to this nonsense and not be nervous that this man is in a tight race for the presidency?

But wait, there's more.

Q. Duelfer also said that Saddam fully intended to resume his weapons of mass destruction program because he felt that the sanctions were just going to fritter away.

A. But we wouldn't let them just fritter away. That's the point. Folks! If You've got a guy who's dangerous, you've got a guy you suspect is going to do something, you don't lift the sanctions, that's the fruits of good diplomacy. This Administration...I beg your pardon?

Q. You just said [Bush] fictionalized him [Saddam] as an enemy. Now you just said he's dangerous?

A. No. What I said. I said it all the time. Consistently I have said Saddam Hussein presented a threat. I voted for the authorization, because he presented a threat. There are all kinds of threats in the world, ladies and gentlemen. Al Qaeda is in 60 countries. Are we invading all 60 countries? 35 to 40 countries had the same --more-- capability of creating weapons, nuclear weapons, at the time the president invaded Iraq than Iraq did. Are we invading all 35 to 40 of them? Did we invade Russia? Did we invade China? The point is that there are all kinds of options available to a president to deal with threats and I consistently laid out to the president how to deal with Saddam Hussein, who was a threat. If I'd been president, I'd have wanted the same threat of force. But as I have said a hundred times if not a thousand iin this campaign, there was a right way to use that authority and a wrong way. The president did it the wrong way. He rushed to war without a plan to win the peace, against my warnings and other people's warnings. And now we have the mess we have today. It is completely consistent that you can see him as a threat and deal with him realistically just as we saw the Soviet Union and China and others as threats and have dealt with them in other ways.

Translation: "I have always covered all my bases by carefully choosing to be on every side in every argument. I said Saddam was dangerous before I said he wasn't. I think we can agree fighting everyone is bad. So I want to engage in lots of coalition building to keep everyone tied up so there won't be any fighting, even if we have to act as if we might fight sometime when we get the right coalition put together and have taken every action short of actually doing anything."

Final thoughts: His first reaction to international issues is to look outside the U.S. for answers. Obviously he distrusts this country. He seems to believe that American foreign policy is not legitimate unless confirmed by the French, the Russians or other "allies." It's the "global" test over and over again.

His ready assumption that others would place their careers above their duty to their nation and to their troops may reveal more about his own approach to power than he ever intended.

*Shinseki wasn't fired, but he should have been. Jed Babbin wrote a brilliant piece on the "revolt of the general" for National Review and lays out all the reasons why Shinseki should have been long gone before he had a chance to set up the current administration with his "guesstimate" on the number of troops that might be needed. In essence, Secretary Rumsfeld was trying to transform the military and the leader of the resistance was his Army Chief of Staff. Where Rumsfeld wanted light, fast and "joint." Shinseki was an "old Army" heavy metal guy whose idea of transformation was to spend lots of money on new Army equipment that didn't meet any need. If Shinseki's situation "chilled" anyone it was the his cronies in the Army who were helping in resisting the message that Secretary Rumsfeld was trying to deliver. Shinseki is also political and an alleged protege of Senator Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii). Kerry is supporting a Democrat politico to be and also snuggling up to Inouye.

Update: Fixed glitch in first question.

This exlains something: Chirac lashes out against US cultural domination

Chirac in VN photo

This Khaleej Times Online article explains a lot:

HANOI - French President Jacques Chirac warned Thursday of a "catastrophe" for
global diversity if the United States' cultural hegemony goes unchallenged.

Speaking at a French cultural center in Hanoi ahead of Friday's opening
of a summit of European and Asian leaders, Chirac said France was right to stand
up for cultural and linguistic diversity.

The outspoken French president
warned that the world's different cultures could be "choked" by US values...

Speaking in French in a fomer French colony, Chirac apparently did not note the irony in giving such a speech in a country which once engaged in a violent revolution to rid itself of the French and their "cultural hegemony."

Too Few Troops-? There's a Good Explanation

Wretchard at Belmont Club offers a superb answer to the critics who assert we had too few troops in Iraq when the combat operations stopped and the looting began.

This discussion was prompted by former Ambassador Bremer's widely quoted comment: "We paid a big price for not stopping it (looting) because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness... We never had enough troops on the ground."

Wretchard points out the Fourth Infantry Division was the missing battlefield component and it was missing "directly as a result of the machinations of those supposed to administer Kerry's Global Test to America in the United Nations, who were large part responsible for closing Turkey to the United States." He quotes a contemporary Christian Science Monitor article to support this view: "Turkish President Ahmet Sezer says that the US must first win international legitimacy before launching any military operation in Iraq, arguing that a second UN Security Council resolution beyond Resolution 1441 be passed."

Of course, that "legitmacy" could not be obtained to Turkey's saitisfaction and "The Fourth Infantry Division which was scheduled to attack downward from Turkey and sweep through the Sunni heartland never arrived in large part due to the opposition of countries like France in the Security Council. Instead, it was forced to re-embark and ship around to the Gulf where it marched north up the Tigris in the path of the 3rd Infantry Division."

It speaks well of our armed forces that the 3rd ID and the Marines, coupled with the Brits and othe allies were able to do the job as well as they did until they were joined by the rest of the intended units.

It speaks poorly of those nations that acted to interfere with the movement of troops through Turkey. At least part of the problems resulting from this interference should be laid at the feet of the governments involved.

Update: A somewhat counter argument is made by Phillip Carter at Intel-Dump

"It's not altogether clear how many U.S. troops we would've had to commit to Iraq in order to secure that nation. Even if we had marched in the 4th Infantry Division from the north via Turkey to steamroll the Sunni Triangle, and put 500,000+ troops on the ground, I think we would likely still face an insurgency from the former regime loyalists and jihadists bent we face today. But I believe that we would've reached the tipping point far earlier in our fight against the insurgency, by providing sufficient security to enable reconstruction projects to go forward, thus improving the lives of enough Iraqis so as to remove much popular support from the insurgency..."

Maybe. As Mr. Carter also provides: "We'll never be able to prove this assertion, unfortunately, because you only get one shot to make history."

But it is important to use that history to see where things may have gone wrong and learn from it. The flaw in the U.S. plan was an reluctance to believe that the French and some other former allies would not support us. Perhaps it was "oil for food" or perhaps it is a Old Europe desire to keep the U.S. in a box...but the State Department should have warned the Pentagon that such a thwarting was possible before we had the 4th ID equipment bobbing on ships off Turkey.

Loonies for Bush

DRUDGE REPORT has transcript of ABC New coverage of Senator Edwards' reasoned argument for voting against George Bush: "I'd say if you live in the United States of America and you vote for George Bush, you've lost your mind."

Sign me up for "Loonies for Bush!"

Update: Recognizing I may get hammered for my lack of sensitivity toward some group or another, let me hasten to say that I find it offensive to have my right to make a joke jumped on by overly sensitive people. So there.

Update: Here's a certified "loonie" It's Official

Some good thoughts on Afghanistan -the Tora Bora Issue

Here Froggy Ruminations: 10/01/2004 - 10/31/2004 Matte Heidt of Froggyruminations does a great job of explaining some of the realities of the Global War on Terrorism in general and Kerry's Tora Bora debate mumbo jumbo in an effort to reorganize some disorderly thought processes of one of his correspondents.

Here's a good tidbit: " If you go around saying that getting UBL is the most important mission of the GWOT, then you are not only wrong, but you are foolish. The highest priority is to kill and capture operational leaders and actual terrorists in order to prevent follow on attacks on the homeland. UBL is not even part of the chain of command in AQ in his current situation, and his death or capture would not impact the operational threat against the US homeland."

Read the whole thing.

North Korea warns U.S., Japan of 'nuclear sea of fire'

The North Koreans, apparently feeling lonely, seek some attention:

North Korea warns U.S., Japan of 'nuclear sea of fire'
Friday, September 24, 2004
By Barbara Demick, Los Angeles Times
SEOUL, South Korea -- In an unusually explicit threat to its neighbor yesterday, North Korea warned that Japan would be immersed in a "nuclear sea of fire" if the United States were to attack the North.

The threat came as Japanese and South Korean government officials expressed fears that North Korea was preparing to test a ballistic missile...

...North Korea continues to balk at joining another round of six-nation talks on its nuclear program. "Pyongyang apparently wants to wait for the outcome of the U.S. presidential election in November," Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary Hiroyuki Hosoda said.

Do you think? I wonder if any of Mr. Kerry's messages regarding "bunker buster" bombs got through?

Update: corrected transmission date & time
Update: Changed spacing

Hewitt Symposium Question

Hugh Hewitt poses these three symposium questions: Did Kerry blunder in denouncing nuclear bunker busters? If so, why? If so, how great the damage to his candidacy?

I think it was a major blunder.

Kerry raised the issue during his discussion of the greatest threat facing the United States:

LEHRER: …If you are elected president, what will you take to that office thinking is the single most serious threat to the national security to the United States?

KERRY: Nuclear proliferation. Nuclear proliferation. There's some 600-plus tons of unsecured material still in the former Soviet Union and Russia. At the rate that the president is currently securing it, it'll take 13 years to get it. I did a lot of work on this. I wrote a book about it several years ago -- six, seven years ago -- called "The New War," which saw the difficulties of this international criminal network. And back then, we intercepted a suitcase in a Middle Eastern country with nuclear materials in it. And the black market sale price was about $250 million. Now, there are terrorists trying to get their hands on that stuff today. And this president, I regret to say, has secured less nuclear material in the last two years since 9/11 than we did in the two years preceding 9/11.

We have to do this job. And to do the job, you can't cut the money for it. The president actually cut the money for it. You have to put the money into it and the funding and the leadership. And part of that leadership is sending the right message to places like North Korea.

Right now the president is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to research bunker-busting nuclear weapons. The United States is pursuing a new set of nuclear weapons. It doesn't make sense.
You talk about mixed messages. We're telling other people, "You can't have nuclear weapons," but we're pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using.

Not this president. I'm going to shut that program down, and we're going to make it clear to the world we're serious about containing nuclear proliferation. And we're going to get the job of containing all of that nuclear material in Russia done in four years. And we're going to build the strongest international network to prevent nuclear proliferation. This is the scale of what President Kennedy set out to do with the nuclear test ban treaty. It's our generation's equivalent. And I intend to get it done.

(Des Moines Register transcript .) It may be worth noting that the Kerry campaign website (well, he did tell us to look at it) states: “The greatest threat facing America in the 21st Century is the possibility of an attack by terrorists armed with a nuclear weapon.”)

It seems to me that the part of the answer dealing with the ”bunker-busting nuclear weapons” was a completely unnecessary addition to what should have been a short answer to the question posed.

It does, however, give us some hair-raising insight into the Kerry thought process. It seems that, in his view, the United States of America is equivalent to a rogue state like North Korea. Somehow our possession of nuclear weapons makes us unworthy to seek to stop the development of such weapons by nations who do not now possess them, even for states that have long flouted international law and agreements.

Kerry apparently believes international relationships are governed by sending the right “messages” to miscreant nations. I assume the ultimate “right message” about weapons would be to completely lay down our arms to indicate that we are not a threat to anyone. It is this mindset that concludes that possession of a weapon that “we might even contemplate using” is particularly awful. I guess the only “good” weapon is one you do not contemplate needing to use. No wonder he was opposed to so many of the weapons systems developed over the past 20 years, he was afraid we might use them. Zell Miller had it right: spitballs might have been all that was available if Kerry had prevailed.

Presumably Mr. Kerry also believes that if we send the “right” message, all the bad guys in the world will also disarm and peace will break out. I think we tried something like this in the past when between World War I and II the US maintained an exceptionally weak military even as Nazi Germany and Japan began to violate the various arms agreements signed in the wake of the first “war to end all wars.” History does not prove that peace is derived from weakness but rather quite the opposite. From my own Navy days, I recall a poster that was a take off on the 23rd Psalm. “Yea, “ it read, “though I walk through the valley of death, I will fear no evil, because I am the meanest son-of-a-bitch in the valley.”

Obviously, this sort of “meanest SOB” deterrence is not part of the Kerry political calculus. As a result, he is willing to give away, without getting anything in return, a weapon system that might deter bad guys from burrowing deep into the earth to set up places to do bad things that could hurt this country and/or our allies. Under the current program, such bad people might question the value of digging deeper, for no matter how deep they dig, we might still be able to get them. Without such a weapon system they can mine away with a relative degree of confidence we won’t be able to trouble them.

Further, Kerry’s eagerness to give such a potentially valuable tool away without any form of reciprocity is either another example of his lack of negotiating skills* or a sign that he doesn’t understand how the modern world is shaping up, or both. If it is a lack of negotiating skill then this is something that should give Americans pause as they contemplate electing a man who has promised to enter into so many negotiations to resolve issues of Iraq and other important matters. If he lacks a realistic world view, then his election would be a tragic mistake in a very dangerous time.

Finally, as is clear from the transcript, Kerry seems to have muddled together two different problems involving the dangers of nuclear proliferation and by mixing the problems, muddles how he would respond.

The first problem is how to get control over nuclear material that might be acquired by extranational terrorists, such as Al Qeda, who pose e a threat to many nation-states, including the US. The second problem is how to get control of the development or acquisition of nuclear weapons by sovereign nations that are recognized by the international community, such as North Korea. Obviously, different solutions are required for each problem.

Terrorists might be an “international criminal network” as Mr. Kerry suggests. However, I don’t think anyone can seriously suggest that any act by the U.S. to give up one of its weapons systems will change one tiny bit of terrorist behavior in attempting to gather the materials needed make weapons of mass destruction. In contrast, the Bush doctrine contemplates that nation-states that aid and abet such groups also are acting outside the bounds of international law and, like those who harbor pirates, can be fairly attacked, as we dealt with the Barbary pirates in 1805 by attacking their havens. This approach, which seems perfectly legal under whatever passes for international law, should be an incentive for terrorist sponsoring states to change their evil ways.

But the equation changes significantly when it is a nation-state itself that is acquiring such weapons. I don’t pretend to understand State Department diplomacy, but as far as I know, there is no international agreement for the proposition that just because a nation has developed a weapon of mass destruction that it “might even contemplate using,” that the offending nation has become fair game for attack by another nation that feels it might be attacked. Instead, the support of the international community must be sought to make it apparent to the bad-actor nation that it is far less dangerous to be a good neighbor than a bad one. Sanctions, alliances, treaties, arms talks and the whole range of diplomacy can be invoked. What must be made clear, though, is that threatening behavior will not be tolerated. Of course, you have to have the will to back it up. And that may include weapons that you are willing and able to use.

In sum, Kerry’s answer is a disaster. It appears he does not think through his statements for the effect they might have (as with his earlier gratuitous insults of our allies in Iraq and the Iraqi Prime Minister). Here he announces he will give away a weapon system that might deter actions that could prove detrimental to the United States. He gets nothing in return. By doing so, he reveals that he is an awful negotiator who believes in the power of symbolic “messages” instead of in actual strength (and the apparent willingness to use that strength). He reveals that he may have view of the world in which the U.S. is a rogue nation and on a par with North Korea and even terrorists. At best this view is naïve and, at worst, so wrong-headed as to be dangerous to our national security.

However, there may not be much impact on his campaign. So much of his support is driven by anti-Bush feelings that there is almost no hope of having these Bush-haters change their minds by pointing out Kerry’s manifest and manifold flaws. Too bad.

*Beldar discussed Kerry's apparent lack of negotiating skills here.

Update: fixed link to Kerry campaign website

The Plan is in the Mail

Thoughts on the debate:

Hot News Flash: George Bush is not Ronald Reagan. He will never be known as the "Great Communicator."

On the other hand, he what he is. If you like what he is, then that's enough. He does talk like real people talk and not like the smartest guy in the class. Of course, the smartest guy in my class was smart enough to talk like a regular guy...

Kerry was more on the attack, but that's not too surprising since an incumbent president will have a record to attack. Mr. Bush wisely avoided any attacks on Mr. Kerry's governmental service, except for one brief comment made in face of a "loaded" question about his opponent's character flaws.

Kerry is hard to debate because he spews out a lot of words (my wife says he provided four answers for every question) and is not, apparently, under any constraints of logic, consistency or common sense. His need to put himself on the scene of major events is really strange. Who cares if he was in the KGB file room unless he was pulling his own file.

He straddles (supporting two forms of negotiating with North Korea).

He attacks what he alleges has happened regardless of what really happened (as in the alleged failure to use US troops in Tora Bora which was disputed by Gen. Franks and by the SpecOp people who assert that that's the way we were supposed to be doing it).

He avoids setting him self up (he continuosly says he has a plan and rather than bore us with any details, suggests you visit his website - I guess the President should have brought his laptop so he could debate Kerry's plans. Might be fun to have the President whip out his laptop on the campaign trail and debate it. How long can Kerry get away with the "plan is in the mail" routine?

Since Kerry seems to believe every thing he says as he says it (so that it becomes his own "ground truth") , it's hard to use the positions he has taken in the past against him because he will simply claim that he has not ever shifted his position because, in his mind he hasn't.

The President looked tired and burdened. That's the way he should look. He was out doing the country's business during the day. Like rust, the demands on the president never sleep.His vacations just take him away from the throngs in Washington (how did Lincoln put up with people wandering into the White Hose?). He's carrying a huge load on his shoulders and he was aware that as president he cannot take the pot shots at the French, Germans and the UN the way that a challenger can take on our allies. It shows a degree of maturity misunderstood by the Kerry support group.

Kerry continues his need to get approval..."global test" ---looking for a summit-- perhaps "the summit of pointlessness?" Seems like some sort of junior high peer group thing "Please like me" thing.

Bush's approach reminds me of the old Rick Nelson song "Garden Party" in which experience with peer rejection teaches some widom:

"But it's all right now. I learned my lesson well.
You see, you can't please everyone, so you got to please yourself."

Update: Just watched the Democrats' tape on facial expressions. If that's the best they've got, then they ain't got much.

Cheap Debate Advice: Flying Dog and the Orange Man

Dear President Bush,

I know that you are getting a lot of advice on how to debate Senator Kerry. More than likely this advice is pretty good and well thought out. I thought I'd offer a little of the other kind.

First, try to ignore the orange hue of your opponent. It is probably a political trick designed by the Democrats to make you lose your train of thought during the debates. Trying to smother your laughter will only give rise to additional allegations of "smirking" and contentions of you "not being a serious candidate." No Halloween quips, either. I know that your practice sessions did not include debating against anyone who has managed to turn himself orange, but that is simply because even Karl Rove couldn't anticipate this sly political maneuver (unless he was behind it, in which case, never mind).

Second, keep your answers short and to the point. If Mr. Kerry seems to need additional time to make one of his points, generously give him some of your time. Allow him to weave all the nuances he can manage in answering a question. By the time he gets done, no one will remember what the question was, why the debate is beng held or even what planet they are on. In fact, given his speaking style and his Great Pumpkin skin tone, most people watching the debate will believe they've tuned into some horrible old science fiction movie like the ones they used to show on Saturday nights at midnight. Try to remain awake yourself. You might want to borrow an IPOD from one of your daughters so you will have something to listen to while he drones on. Try not to dance, though.

Third, I know that you aren't supposed to talk directly to Mr. Kerry, but if the chance arises, you might ask Mr. Kerry about his famous flying dog. You know, the one he described in his response to this question posed by the Humane Society :

Q. "Do you have any pets that have made an impact on you personally?"

Mr. Kerry's Answer (and I am not making this up):


"I have always had pets in my life and there are a few that I remember very fondly.
When I was serving on a swiftboat in Vietnam, my crewmates and I had a dog we called
VC. We all took care of him, and he stayed with us and loved riding on the swiftboat
deck. I think he provided all of us with a link to home and a few moments of peace and tranquility during a dangerous time. One day as our swiftboat was heading up a river, a mine exploded hard under our boat. After picking ourselves up, we discovered VC was MIA. Several minutes of frantic search followed after which we thought we'd lost him. We were relieved when another boat called asking if we were missing a dog. It turns out VC was catapulted from the deck of our boat and landed confused, but unhurt, on the deck of another boat in our patrol."

While there is some risk in raising the issue of Mr. Kerry's Vietnam service, the odds are that if the debate has lasted more than thirty seconds that subject will have all ready been raised, if you know what I mean. Anyway, as a former fighter pilot (you might mention that, the polls seem to show that the image of you in uniform as a younger man and in a flight suit plays well to a certain segment of the voting public and we need all the votes of women we can get), you might tell him that while you understand enough physics to deal with getting a high powered jet aircraft into the air, you really would like to know more about this incident. Ask him to draw pictures of where the boats where and how high the dog flew and to opine on how large an explosion it would take to launch a dog through space and yet apparently do no damage to his boat or crew. You might ask if the boat that received the dog saw the mine explode and yet only called him about the dog and not to see if he needed any assistance in recovering from the blast. I mean, if it were me on the boat that received the dog and I hadn't seen or heard the explosion and a dog suddenly appeared on the deck of my boat, I would have been thinking "miracle" and not quizzing my fellow boat skippers about whether they were missing a dog.

If he asks what possible relevance the flying dog has to the campaign, turn the question on him by saying something like, "I'm not sure, but aren't you the guy who wrote the response to the Humane Society question to presidential candidates? Why did you think it was relevant?" If he tries to claim it was just a little "shaggy dog" story, ask him what other things he has said fall into the same category.

Relax. Have fun. Let him debate himself.

The Gauntlet is Thrown

Beldar has issued a challenge to those who allege that the SwiftVet claims have been "debunked" or are "unsubstantiated"--
prove it!

Click on the title to go to Beldar's site.

Draft? We don't need no stinking draft!

From USA Today:
"9/15/04
Edwards: No military draft if Democrats win
PARKERSBURG, W.Va. (AP) — Vice presidential candidate John Edwards promised a West Virginia mother on Wednesday that if the Democratic ticket is elected in November the military draft would not be revived.

During a question-and-answer session, the mother of a 23-year-old who recently graduated from West Virginia University asked Edwards whether the draft would be reinstated.

"There will be no draft when John Kerry is president," Edwards said, a statement that drew a standing ovation."

Big deal. There won't be a draft if John Kerry isn't elected, either. Edwards may as well have announced that the sun will continue shine if Kerry is elected.

Look, the draft makes sense only if the country is engaged in total war on a global basis and our society's future is in serious question. Otherwise, we don't need it. Unlike the US military of the 1930's (pre-WWII draft), today's military is a very capable force, well-equipped (although my son does fly a 35+ year old helicopter -but then again, so does the President) and well-trained. It has more tooth to tail than it used to because transferring support jobs to the civilian world or to the reserves allowed the active forces to focus more on warfighters and less on cooks and barbers. Today there is far less time spent finding "make work" projects to keep the excess troops busy (e.g. painting rock along the road white) and much more time spent in trainers, in training and in "head work." The modern active force, regardless of rate or rank, is composed of real professionals - yes, professionals -just like doctors and lawyers and accountants. Our best soldiers, marines and sailors have to continually prove themselves in exceptionally difficult training. If a lawyer like Senator Edwards has a bad day in court, he might lose a case and some money. Let's just say that in combat, the stakes are a little higher. The point is that modern warfare, as practiced by our high-speed low drag forces, is not a place for rookies or amateurs and we can't afford the babysitters that draftees would need.

The lesson of Vietnam is that draftees fought well, but had a higher death rate than professionals. I base this on statistics from an article titled "Fact vs. fiction": By B.G. Burkett and Glenna Whitley (found on the Vietnam Veterans of Florida website). Of the total number of military draftees from 1965-1973 (1,728,344), 38% actually served in Vietnam and accounted for 30.4% of combat death (17,725). However, on average, only 50% (somewhere between 40-60%) of the 38% of draftees served either in combat or in close support. That means that roughly 19% of the combat forces accounted for 30% of the deaths.

Why? Because of inexperience. Old soldiers are older soldiers because they understand combat better than rookies. That's why "new guys" were not always immediately accepted into line units in WWII- their prospective lifespan was too short to want to get too close to them (and in WWI, too, and in any army - read All Quiet on the Western Front and you'll get the idea). Experience (and more training) saves lives.

So, assume you had a draft and that a draftee spent 9 weeks getting through bootcamp. If the draftee has but two years to serve, his time is now down to 22 months. In 2 years he earns 60 days of leave. His useful service time (UST) is down to 20 months. However, bootcamp does not teach him the soldier skills he needs, advanced training is required. Job training for an M-1 Abrams Tank Systems Maintainer consists of the nine weeks of Basic Training and 16 weeks of Advanced Individual Training. Part of this time is spent in the classroom and part in the field. A draftee places in such a position would then have a UST of 16 months and he would still have to spend time (probably 6 months) actually working with real equipment before he could be considered marginally qualified to go into the field. UST is now 10 months. He could make part of a deployment and then would leave the service. All along the way he will require supervision from personnel who would serve better in other roles. This is an enormously expensive way to build troop levels.

Far better to spend the money on a soldier who wants to be there and who will serve a longer period of time.

Reservists offer further proof of my point. Combat arms reservists, many of whom have experience in Desert Strorm, still require a lot of training to get back in the combat groove. In fact, one of the complaints of the active forces in Desert Storm was how long it took certain units to get up to speed. Some skills you cannot maintain on a training cycle of one weekend a month and two weeks a year. Some you can come close on, like lawyers and certain staff functions. It would be a rare reservist who was ready to step right into command of a combat brigade or of an aircraft carrier battle group...

So, stop Congressman's Charlie Rangel's draft. http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/07/rangel.draft/

Oh, yes, one other point. Why wasn't the mother of the WVU grad asking Senator Edwards how her son could join the fight against global terrorism or how he could serve the nation that provides his freedom and protected his life for 23 years? And why didn't the Senator make that point?

No "Duty- Honor- Country" there- just "what's in it for me" and hope someone else picks up the slack.

Well, mother of a WVU grad. Sleep well - some other mother's son or daughter has the watch tonight. And God bless them for it!

Update: Here's another site with info on draftee deaths in Vietnam: http://www.vetshome.com/vietnam.htm

Terry McAwful and Grifters

Terry McAuliffe, the nominal head of the DNC, is well aware that the forged document TANG memos are going to come home to roost with the DNC and/or the Kerry campaign. He undoubtedly is engaging in a little tactical misdirection by making the claim that the evil Republicans are behind the forgeries in hopes of confusing the gullible and the easily diverted. In effect: "No fair!" he whines, "They knew we were so anxious to find some dirt on Bush that we'd even fall for these obvious frauds. No fair!"

If he is right, which I very much doubt, he reminds me of the people who get scammed by those crooks who take advantage of the "victims" own greed. You know, the scam where the greedy victim is told that the grifter has found a wallet full of money and will split it with the greedy guy if the greedy guy puts up some money to show his good faith? "You can't cheat an honest man" the saying goes...

Interesting how the DNC is so quick to assert its own victimhood...


I wonder if Mr. McAuliffe is used to having sand kicked in his face?

To Know Him is to Dislike Him

Lots of speculation on the reason Mr. Kerry slides in the polls.

My personal view is that the more you see of him, the more irritating he becomes. It occurs to me this is the reason why his numbers rise when he is on one of his vacations.

New Message to CBS

After reading the CBS non-resposnses on today's Drudge, I sent off the following:

Dear CBS News:

Your comments regarding the forged Texas Air National Guard documents do not go nearly far enough in dealing with the fraud developed through your broadcast.

Mr. Rather personally vouched for the documents and asserted they came from an "unimpeachable" source. It has been of little help to date that your position has been the the documents, though fake, conveyed "factual" information. I won't belabor the insidious nature of such a claim as other people have done it far better than I could. However, I will ask the same question I asked in a previous email: How would 60 Minutes respond if it caught a businessman or government official attempting to duck such an issue in the same way you are?

You know the answer as well as I do - you would be headlining "fraud" and demanding resignations.

At the very least you now must reveal all the sources of the documents. Having an independent investigation is a fine idea. I suggest that you request that the lawyers at the Powerline blog and the lawyer identified as "Buckhead" be on the investigation team.

Building Coalitions?

In an amazing article from The Austrialian
(http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,10797507%255E2703,00.html)
reported at Captain's Quarters (http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2562)
John Kerry's sister apparently has undertaken an effort to undermine our exsiting coalition by suggesting that involvement with the US in Iraq may lead to the Australians being in greater danger from terrorist attack.

If it is true that this is part of the Kerry campaign, then CQ asks the right questions:
"Does John Kerry care more about grabbing power than he does about the United States?... Who gave the order for Diana Kerry to interfere with the Australian election? Who told her to act in a manner that is calculated to undermine the American-Australian partnership on the terror war?"

and appropriate outrage:

"Frankly, not only should this disqualify him for the presidency, it should disqualify anyone involved in his campaign from ever holding public office. Those who condone this interference in a wartime alliance must be punished at the polls, and their party as a whole should be blocked from any power whatsoever until they atone for their actions."

It also causes me to wonder, if true, how Mr. Kerry plans to build the alliances he has spoken of so often...

This is ugly stuff!

Feedback to CBS News

Having just watched the CBS Evening News, I went to their website and sent the following comment:

Just watched Dan Rather on the Evening News.

I cannot believe that CBS and Mr. Rather continue to base coverage of the election, especially of the the President's appearance before the National Guard Association on documents that so many other media sources have challenged -- no, have outright asserted are crude forgeries.

I call on you to either produce the originals of the four memos for examination by impartial, outside experts or announce that the documents and the charges that you have made based on them are withdrawn.

I am well aware that if 60 Minutes were investigating any governmental agency or other business that was relying on such questionable documents it would demanding their full and complete release. I suggest you do what you would have others do.

Rather's Rules of Evidence

Okay, let's recap. CBS and the Boston Globe re-researched the records on the President's Texas Air National Guard (TANG) service and announced that they believe there are new issues based on "new" documents that have been provided to them. And CBS dragged old Ben Barnes before its mighty Eyeball to perform his Kerry donating duty to tell how he somehow helped Mr. Bush get into the TANG, which information that famed ambush journalism program then uses to argue that Mr. Bush didn't serve properly even after he got in through use of pull. Which in turn has been seized on by what seems to be every anti-Bush force in the media, whether new or old, to prove...uh...some sort of parity between the SwiftVet allegations concerning Kerry's war and post-war record and the President's service in the Guard during much of the same period. And then the Blogger brigade notices the documents used to support the CBS allegation may in fact be really "new" - freshly minted new as opposed to recently discovered.

And CBS ...stalls for time, while a whole web of technically savvy people knock down the authenticity of the papers CBS has offered for our inspection. Dan Rather then offers up one expert who says he can authenticate the signature on a copy of the original document without seeing the original (after previously writing that an expert should not make such conclusions based on copies). CBS offers up a couple of more people who suggest, it appeared to me, that because documents like these could exist, the proffered documents must be real. Neither of them testifies to any personal knowledge of the documents in question. CBS expressly states that these documents were not part of any official files, thus seeming to negate any argument that these documents fall under either the official records or business records exception to the hearsay rules. No cross-examination of the witnesses being allowed, Mr. Rather announces that he has carried his burden of proof by a preponderance of all the evidence he allowed to be heard and goes on to state that since he hasn't allowed any other evidence to heard (and did not allow the witnesses to be cross-examined) there is no other evidence... and declares victory. I missed the White Rabbit, but the Rules of Evidence seemed to be right out of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.

“There's more evidence to come yet, please your Majesty,” said the White Rabbit, jumping up in a great hurry; “this paper has just been picked up.”

       “What's in it?” said the Queen.

       “I haven't opened it yet,” said the White Rabbit, “but it seems to be a letter, written by the prisoner to—to somebody.”

       “It must have been that,” said the King, “unless it was written to nobody, which isn't usual, you know.”

       “Who is it directed to?” said one of the jurymen.

       “It isn't directed at all,” said the White Rabbit; “in fact, there's nothing written on the outside.” He unfolded the paper as he spoke, and added “It isn't a letter, after all: it's a set of verses.”

       “Are they in the prisoner's handwriting?” asked another of they jurymen.

       “No, they're not,” said the White Rabbit, “and that's the queerest thing about it.” (The jury all looked puzzled.)

       “He must have imitated somebody else's hand,” said the King. (The jury all brightened up again.)

       “Please your Majesty,” said the Knave, “I didn't write it, and they can't prove I did: there's no name signed at the end.”

       “If you didn't sign it,” said the King, “that only makes the matter worse. You must have meant some mischief, or else you'd have signed your name like an honest man.”

       There was a general clapping of hands at this: it was the first really clever thing the King had said that day.

       “That proves his guilt,” said the Queen.

It is no wonder that some really good lawyers are leading the attack on these documents.

The Swift Vet Case

My response to a recent Eleanor Clift "web" article


Bush’s Sleeper Cells
All it takes is a wink and a nod from the White House, and this network springs into action
WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Eleanor Clift
Newsweek
Updated: 3:50 p.m. ET Aug. 27, 2004

…The Kerry campaign thinks it has succeeded in discrediting the scurrilous attack on Kerry’s military service, but Rove got what he wanted. Instead of talking about a failed war in Iraq and a new report that shows 1.3 million more Americans living in poverty, we’re debating what happened in the Mekong Delta in 1968. The strategy “came straight from the West Wing,” says the GOP staffer. “Nobody should be confused.” Asked to explain, this Republican says Rove is smart enough to keep technical distance. But all it takes is a well-placed wink to activate a web of Bush family hit men, confidantes and deep-pocket donors. “They know what to do—it’s like sleeper cells that get activated,” he says, likening the players to “political terrorists.”

…The charges advanced by the so-called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth would never hold up in a court of law. These men would have us believe, contrary to Navy records and countless eye witnesses, that Kerry did not act heroically and had a grand plan to manipulate medals from the military.


…A lot of Vietnam vets will never forgive Kerry for accusing them of committing atrocities. Kerry has conceded some hyperbole in his 1971 Senate testimony, but didn’t the Toledo Blade win a Pulitzer this year for uncovering Vietnam-era atrocities? Have we forgotten about the My Lai massacre and Zippo lighters burning down hooches? Maybe a few masochists want to debate whether Vietnam was a noble cause, but 58,000 of our soldiers died. The war was a waste whether you were on the right or the left. Kerry leveled most of his criticism at political leaders who didn’t tell the truth, and who sanctioned “search and destroy” missions that invited war crimes. By the time Kerry testified in 1971, 44,000 American soldiers were already dead. The war had almost no popular support, yet another 14,000 lives would be lost.

…By assailing his heroism, the GOP may have done Kerry a favor. Maybe they’ve awakened a sleeping giant.
© 2004 Newsweek, Inc.


Ms. Clift:

I find your “Bush’s Sleeper Cells” column to be ...well, I’ll use your word… scurrilous.

You wrote: “The Kerry campaign thinks it has succeeded in discrediting the scurrilous attack on Kerry’s military service...”

However, several of these SwiftVets charges have been confirmed by Mr. Kerry through his representatives. For example, they (his reps) now say he was not in Cambodia on the date and time he said he was, although he might have been “nearby.” They now say he may have caused his first wound for which he received a Purple Heart although it may have been the result of contact with the enemy. They now admit that his was not the only boat that remained to conduct rescue operations when another boat hit a mine, he was the only one that left and then came back. Are admitted charges still “scurrilous?”

You assert: "The charges advanced by the so-called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth would never hold up in a court of law.”

There are plenty reasons to believe otherwise. As I see it, the SwiftVets have made but one charge- that John Kerry’s history makes him unfit to be president. In support of this charge they make four major allegations:

1. That Mr. Kerry misrepresented certain aspects of his service in Vietnam and his caused harm to his fellow Swift boat veterans by placing them in a false light. As one of the Swift Vets said:
“What actually happened... was they actually looked and they saw the advertisement even that Kerry had in January and February and they thought it was some other incident. It was so completely different than what they were involved in, they thought it had to be something else. When they learned that it was related to the incident where the 3 boat was mined, they were shocked. They were just sickened, because the things were portraying them as fleeing and they were the guys that stayed. And it portrayed Kerry as the hero, when he was the guy that fled. It turned the world upside down. That‘s why they have all come forward one at a time, appeared on television and told their story. It‘s just the world turned upside down.”
2. That Mr. Kerry misrepresented certain injuries he sustained in Vietnam in order to qualify for Purple Heart medals so that he could leave Vietnam early, casting doubt on his oft asserted “hero” status,
3. That Mr. Kerry’s false statements made in his 1971 Senate testimony caused further harm to the same Swift boat veterans and to other veterans of the Vietnam war by placing them in a false light, and
4. That Mr. Kerry’s false statements made in his 1971 Senate testimony provided aid and comfort to the enemy then being fought by the American military, causing harm to forces then in the field and to prisoners of war.

They assert that the proof of these charges render Mr. Kerry unfit to be president of the United States.

Trials are decided by the weight of credible evidence. Any lawyer would love, early in a trial, to have a defendant admit that some things that he previously said were true are, after further reflection, maybe not so true. This goes right to the heart of that witness’s credibility and the jury has to question any testimony of a witness who has proved himself to be even a little careless with the facts. In addition to the Cambodia story and the other “corrections” set forth above, the SwiftVets can raise the point that Kerry has admitted exaggerating before, as you note when you wrote: “Kerry has conceded some hyperbole in his 1971 Senate testimony…”

Any SwiftVet lawyer will freely admit that Mr. Kerry did serve honorably and even heroically at times. He will also build a case that tragically, Mr. Kerry was not content to have a “good” record- he needed it to be a “great” record. In order to achieve that special status, over the years Mr. Kerry developed a pattern and practice of embellishing parts of his military service well beyond innocent “puffing.”

I assume the quality of witnesses for each side to be even (aside from Mr. Kerry). Both sides will offer up war veterans who served honorably and well and who will testify truthfully about what they saw, heard and understood. But they will not testify to the exact same things. In short, the testimony will be like most eyewitness testimony – somewhat contradictory, confusing and ultimately for the jury to assess.

At a trial the effort might be made by Kerry defenders to impeach the SwiftVets witnesses by pointing out that most served in boats “near” Mr. Kerry and not on his boat. However, even simple car wreck cases do not require every witness to have been in one the cars involved in the wreck. Witnesses observing from the sidewalk or another car are allowed to testify and the jury works its way through any inconsistencies. On that basis, I don’t believe there is a court in the country that would not allow the SwiftVets to testify. Further, I think a jury will accept their testimony as to what they saw, wherever they were located when they saw it.

One other option is to impeach the motives of the Swift Vets by asserting that they have some motive to lie. Kerry witnesses might impugn their integrity. For example, you assert in your column that the SwiftVets are some form of Bush “sleeper cells.” Do you know of someone standing by ready to attempt to impeach the SwiftVets by testifying that these highly decorated veterans have become “political terrorists?” And that their speaking out is something more then the free exercise of their First Amendment right to say what they believe to be true? Perhaps you or your brave “Republican mole” is up to the job?

Maybe their testimony can be impeached with what you describe as “Navy records and countless eye witnesses?” I’ll grant you that perhaps the “countless” part was a little hyperbole on your part – as there is actually a finite, and, therefore, countable number of men who served with Mr. Kerry in the Swift boat group in Vietnam and a large number of them signed on to be part of the “so-called” Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.” Do you know of some larger, uncountable group that’s been holding back in the wings? And what effect will it have on SwiftVet credibility if it was Mr. Kerry himself who wrote up the Navy paperwork about the events involved in this matter (as is alleged by many SwiftVets)? Do you think it will help Mr. Kerry’s case for him to testify that his record is based on, well, his record? Especially given the “hyperbole” factor?

If I were handling the SwiftVet case, I would point out Mr. Kerry’s expressed disdain for the value of official documents. Remember the assertion that Mr. Bush was “AWOL?” Mr. Kerry weighed in on the controversy, essentially asserting that an Honorable Discharge was not, in fact, proof of good service:
“The issue here is, as I have heard it raised, is was he present and active in Alabama at the time he was supposed to be," said Kerry. "I don't have the answer to that question and just because you get an honorable discharge does not in fact answer that question."

In addition to professing doubt about official records, this is a gratuitous slap in the face to every veteran who takes pride in his own honorable discharge. I would be more than happy to explore this assertion at trial.


You wrote: “A lot of Vietnam vets will never forgive Kerry for accusing them of committing atrocities.”

In this instance you are absolutely right. But what happens at a trial if such veterans testify that they will also never forgive Mr. Kerry for providing aid and comfort to the enemy while his fellow Americans were engaged in combat with that enemy?

As noted earlier, you point out that Mr. Kerry, in defense of this testimony, has admitted to a certain amount of “hyperbole” in his Senate testimony in 1971. Any decent lawyer, using a standard dictionary definition of hyperbole, will ask the jury to decide whether this Senate testimony was an “obvious and intentional exaggeration.” The video will be played for the jury. “Where,” they will be asked, “ is there any sign of hyperbole in his testimony?” They will be asked whether Mr. Kerry seriously brought serious charges or simply an “exaggeration” about which it can now be said, “just kidding.”Then the SwiftVet lawyer will ask the jury what difference it makes whether the charges contained hyperbole or not, if the effect in either case was to give aid and comfort to an enemy during time of war and to to slander an entire generation of veterans?

What if at a trial, the SwiftVets call North Vietnamese officials to testify about how Mr. Kerry’s Senate testimony helped them to press on with their fight because what they heard in his words was that, if they held on a little longer, victory was theirs? Or if they offer proof by citing numerous written records to that effect? What if they call experts to testify about how many of the 14,000 men who died after Mr. Kerry’s testimony might have lived had the Vietnamese not been given such hope and dragged the war on? What if they call former prisoners of war to testify, as they did in the second SwiftVet ad, about the effect Mr. Kerry’s “hyperbole” had on them in the Hanoi Hilton and other Vietnamese hellholes?

What if they call witnesses to testify about the official policies that forbade and condemned atrocities? What if witnesses testify that the vast majority of US troops never committed any atrocities and often intervened to prevent or stop them? Will they admit some occurred anyway? Sure, and they will then condemn them again.

What if the SwiftVets could call Hugh Thompson? You might not know his name, but he was the Army helicopter pilot who observed, from the air, something amiss at My Lai, acted to stop it and reported it up the chain of command. What if they had him tell how he landed his craft in between villagers and Lt. Calley’s soldiers and ordered his gunner to fire on any soldier who continued to pursue the villagers? And testify about how he and his gunner radioed two more helicopters to the scene and airlifted a dozen villagers to safety? What if they had him explain that he took these actions because, contrary to Mr. Kerry’s “hyperbole,” it was not the policy of the US Military to engage in or condone atrocities.

What if they then put John Kerry on the stand to repeat his statement that he was one of those who committed atrocities?

Then you will see exactly how the charges made by the SwiftVets would hold up in court.

Contrary to your view, the “sleeping giant” awakened in this matter is not Mr. Kerry but rather thousands of Vietnam veterans who have spent much of their adult lives defending their honorable service from the unfair “hyperbole” of Mr. Kerry and the too willing assumptions of its truth by people like you.

Will they attempt to justify the war? No, and nor should they. They were not the policy-makers and bear no responsibility for the strategic decisions that placed them there. Neither is the war’s justification relevant to Mr. Kerry’s behavior during or after the war. No, the trial would be about his truthfulness, his wartime and post war behavior, the effects of that behavior and what they say about Mr. Kerry’s fitness to be commander in chief.

In short, it is exactly the case that the SwiftVets are bringing to help the American voters to decide. I think it’s relevant and important and worth much more than your casual dismissal.

My Vets Are Better than Your Vets and My Facts Better than Yours

According to Kerry logic:

1. All Vietnam veterans are created equal, but some are more equal than others.
2. Some have the right to speak and be heard because they agree with me.
3. I am to be trusted because I served in Vietnam and was awarded medals.
4. People who served in Vietnam but who don't agree with me cannot be trusted even if they have medals,too.
5. Facts are what I say they are.
6. If my recollection differs from yours, see numbers 1 through 5.

Watching Rumsfield and the other grownups testify before the 911 Commission. It's a refreshing revelation about how complicated things are and why simple answers are not to be found.

Former Senator Bob Kerrey is right. We should have declared war against Osama and his organization in 1993 or 1998 or 2000. I can see why the Clinton administration didn't, though. We had the wrong military force structure then to fight such a war. According to the testimony I heard at the hearing, the choices for pursuing Al Qada were either lob a few cruise missiles or invade with too light forces or invade with too heavy forces.

No effort was made by the Clinton administration to change the force mix to give us more options. Instead, when Rumsfield took over at Defense, he started pushing for a more agile military that would allow a "just right" force to be applied. While being carped at by the critics of why it took so long to respond to the USS Cole attack, Rumsfield could have said "it took that long for the bureaucrats to take me seriously" and for the planners to get it together. He had already ruled out (as apparently so had the Clinton admin) the futile use of cruise missiles.

And, as wiser heads have already said, can you imagine the howling that would have arisen if we had suddenly invaded Afghanistan in pursuit of OBL? The current anti-war (anti-Bush) crowd would have really been after the "illegitimate" president.

Not to mention the problems caused trying to sustain a force on hostile ground with no friendlies nearby. The Germans got pounded by the Russians when the Luftwaffe couldn't keep the ground forces supplied... and if we had tried to do it from ships at sea, it would have been a logistical nightmare.